The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. —Darkwind (talk) 06:22, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

List of airliners by maximum takeoff weight[edit]

List of airliners by maximum takeoff weight (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

PROD removed by IP on WP:ITSUSEFUL grounds. PROD rationaile, still relevant, is that this is a incomplete, mostly unreferenced, and rather WP:SYNTH-ish list that is a "comparison list" compared by a criterion that isn't broadly used in the real world. The usual comparison for airliners is number of seats, and below that, range; MTOW isn't something often, if ever, used as a benchmark, and when it is it's in pounds, not metric tons, and as a comparison list of airliners it makes some truly ridiculous "comparisons" (Boeing 747-400 vs Saab 2000 for instance). And changing the scope of the list from "airliners" to "aircraft", as was done as part of the deprodding makes its scope impossibly broad. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:38, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 23:35, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 23:35, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 23:35, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep This seems to be WP:IDL and WP:AFDISNOTCLEANUP applies. Imperial vs. Metric, two articles AN-225 and A380-800 both use metric (and bracketed imperial) in their articles, so claiming the wrong units is pointless, and usage probably depends upon where you live. Airliners to Aircraft is probably a good idea to include the AN-225. The heaviest/biggest is something used in the real world, especially by the popular press, and programs like Big, Bigger, Biggest. Suggest rename to something like List heaviest aircraft by maximum takeoff weight.Martin451 (talk) 03:43, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Er, what? In aviation, metric tons are never used. Pounds almost always, sometimes kilograms, worldwide. A List of heaviest aircraft might well be valid, but this is not it. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 08:07, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Per nom way to not useful, and way too wide a net cast. Also if you where in Aviation you'd realize that Aviation is always done in Imperial measurements. It's an international standard so that pilots don't get confused going from one area to another. Caffeyw (talk) 08:02, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It might be wise to tell the UK Civil Aviation Authority who worryingly think MTOW is in kilograms.[1] Thincat (talk) 10:00, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

ICAO standards are for weights/heights to be Imperial. Just because a CAA decides to publish a publication locally doesn't absolve them of the need to publish information in standard format. Look at METARs, TAFs, Sectional Charts, etc they always use the same measurements. Canada a few years ago had nearly a very bad crash because of the fact they tried to locally use metric measurements. It caused a plane to not have enough fuel loaded. While they can certainly publish in metric, by international agreement they must always provide data in Imperial measurements for standard publications. It traces back to when Imperial was the world wide standard. I'd much prefer metric, but it's just not a priority for change, and with the US still using it I doubt it will change soon. Caffeyw (talk) 12:11, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Airports in Europe or Africa tend to charge fees based on MTOW in metric tons, e.g. Frankfurt and Cairo... JochenvW (talk) 11:07, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. We have the ((convert)) template to convert between metric and imperial units (and for a general encyclopaedia I'd say that both should be displayed) so that is irrelevant to whether the article should be deleted. I'm not knowledgeable in the subject area but as a lay person, comparing aircraft by the maximum takeoff weights and the other parameters listed here is both useful and interesting. A quick google seems to show that lists such as these are used in airport planning, so it's not an irrelevance (but as already noted it is relevant to popular culture too which is just as valid). Finally, it is not WP:SYNTH as it does not combine two or more sources in such a way as to say anything that is not already in a reliable source. We are simply tabulating independently verifiable facts from multiple sources. Thryduulf (talk) 13:37, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • The point of the units comment is not that they are imperial or metric. It's that they're in a unit that is never used, regardless of system. And how would we deal with the list being WP:INDISCRIMINATE? - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 17:27, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • The unit or units being wrong is something that can very easily be fixed and is not a reason why this should be deleted. A list is indiscriminate only if it cannot have a defined criteria for inclusion and still be encyclopaedic. The inclusion criteria for this list just needs clarifying and applying - i.e. it needs cleanup not deletion. It also needs a better title, but that too is not a reason to delete it. Thryduulf (talk) 09:22, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • "Indiscriminate" can also mean that the defined criteria are impossibly large. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 09:27, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete an indiscrimanate list if it was to include every airliner it is short by a few hundred entries, and despite the lack of many entries it includes aircraft that are not airliners but large transport aircraft that said what remains has no encyclopedic value. MilborneOne (talk) 18:39, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • A list being incomplete is not a reason to delete the list, but to complete it. Every airliner would not be indiscriminate if "airliner" can be defined for the purposes of the list, and we have no trouble defining it elsewhere on Wikipedia (e.g. Airliner and Category:Airliners). If there are entries in the list that do not meet the inclusion criteria then they can easily be removed without necessitating the deletion of the list. As I noted above this needs cleanup not deletion. Thryduulf (talk) 09:22, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Airliner" is easily defined. And that definition makes the scope of the list impossibly - one might even say, indiscriminatly - large. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 09:27, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and improve IMO, this article should completely revamped to only include airliners in production. Also, the heaviest type of each aircraft model, rather than including each individual type, should be listed. In addition, ONLY those aircraft made to become airliners should be included; List of large aircraft is for the AN-225 and other cargo/military aircraft. Hjay50 (talk) 17:24, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • If kept, "Airliners since 1980" or something might be better, as "in production" is the "current/modern" sort of thing that is generally discouraged. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 18:38, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and clean up - Change to standard units, decide which aircraft should be included (please note that trying to include all aircraft in wikipedia itself is not considered "impossible" nor overly large, AND that all aircraft in the list already have an article, and thus references.) MTOW seems to be a widely used measurement in aviation, and so this is a perfectly valid list. Hardly "indiscriminate".  The Steve  10:19, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Including all aircraft in Wikipedia itself =/= including all aircraft in a single list, which would be in the megabytes in size if done. Now, as I've said before, if a tight rescoping can be arranged, this might well be valid - but can we perhaps suggest/come up with what that scope should be? - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 10:28, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep and clean up good overview for quick checks. JochenvW (talk) 11:07, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:ITSUSEFUL - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 10:06, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete; unmaintained and unmaintainable list. We have more complete & more accurate coverage in other articles. bobrayner (talk) 09:34, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:LISTN. I'm unfamiliar with the subject area, but a search of the 'net doesn't indicate this to be a generally recognised criterion for comparing aircraft. If deleted, I'd support undeletion/userfication if reworked (and subsequently moved) to form the basis of list of heaviest aircraft or similar. In this case, historical encyclopedic content should be retained for reference, rather than only including airliners in production as suggested above. -- Trevj (talk) 10:53, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 04:11, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

OS X version history[edit]

OS X version history (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

• Information already covered at History of OS X. Zach Vega (talk to me) 22:37, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 23:34, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 23:34, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. It's nearly empty, unreferenced, and can only duplicate information from another article. If it actually had any content in it, it would be a content fork. There's nothing to merge, and a redirect seems unnecessary; however, if people really want to make a redirect, that's fine. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 02:08, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete – This probably should have been speedy deleted back in 2012 under CSD:A10, aside from the fact there's no content whatsoever. Don't see a need for a redirect. — MusikAnimal ^talk 19:14, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete—Notable topic that's already covered elsewhere. Nothing to merge; wouldn't object to a redirect. Lesser Cartographies (talk) 03:36, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - We don't need this and History of OS X. --Lost tiree, lost dutch :O (talk) 03:14, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 04:11, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel Welch (baseball)[edit]

Daniel Welch (baseball) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG. I don't know where those bare url's are supposed to go, but a Google News Archive search doesn't turn up anything to suggest he meets GNG, only the briefest of mentions. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:36, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:36, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:37, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 23:34, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - per nom. Rlendog (talk) 16:36, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete So he was going to return from his mission in 2010 and resume playing baseball. Did he resume playing baseball. It is quite possible he has graduated from BYU by now. The fact that no one has updated this article in the last 3 years to mention more of his career, suggests he is not notable. What he did up to that point certainly isn't.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:48, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete.. Nothing notable here... According to baseball cube [2] he did return from his mission and played 3 more seasons at BYU, finishing up this past season. He was not drafted and his college stats are unremarkable.Spanneraol (talk) 05:06, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Keep. (Non-admin closure) All parties, including the nominator, have achieved consensus that cleanup, not deletion is the answer here. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 10:40, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

4-string banjo[edit]

4-string banjo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article is factually inaccurate or, at the very least, titled in such a way that makes it completely misleading. The fact that it cites no references just makes it that much worse. Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 20:38, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 22:00, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 22:00, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong keep None of the cited reasons are reasons for deletion; they are reasons for copy-editing. Template it to death, and maybe someone with enough knowledge of the instrument will come by and fix it. --(AfadsBad (talk) 14:49, 11 September 2013 (UTC))[reply]

The section for this instrument in the banjo article is already far more detailed than this stand alone article. Its redundant and woefully inadequate. --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 05:51, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Both five and four string banjos are significant stand alone article topics, while the banjo article could be better developed into a general article without the two large chop-out sections. The four- and five-string American banjos, just the strummed and picked instruments without the variations, are major instruments alone and merit their own articles. A featured article on the resonator five string would be awesome. (AfadsBad (talk) 13:29, 12 September 2013 (UTC))[reply]

Agreed - But the current version is garbage. --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 18:18, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I can't exactly disagree with that. However, I think that the individual article could get the necessary type of attention it needs, but that the topic is lost in the banjo article with the heavy emphasis on picking banjos. --(AfadsBad (talk) 20:21, 12 September 2013 (UTC))[reply]

• Keep A legitimate content fork from Banjo. The correct solution to an unreferenced article is this, not send it to AfD. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 14:02, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not recommending a permanent delete, just of the current drivel. A proper article needs to be constructed. --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 18:18, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Banjo#Four-string banjos for now. The content of the article is weak and biased towards the Brazilan variant. Eventually, the right thing to do is to split the four-stringers out of the banjo article. I've tried to beef that up in the past, but finding reliable sources that trace the history of the different four-string variations was an obstacle.—Kww(talk) 18:12, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed - in hindsight this would have been a better move. --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 18:18, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There are plenty of sources, but part of the problem is the current section puts all four string banjo into the same class, whereas some were intermediate instruments along the way of developing other instruments. Still, I much prefer a separate article. --(AfadsBad (talk) 18:29, 12 September 2013 (UTC))[reply]

In the long-term, the right answer is to have an overview section in banjo, most of the content of Banjo#Four-string banjos in 4-string banjo, and breakout articles per type when there's enough material (see bass banjo for an example). In the short term, the current content of 4-string banjo should just be a paragraph in Banjo#Four-string banjos.—Kww(talk) 20:01, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Any recommendation of a similar article to use as template both in term of the instrument varieties and their respective history? --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 02:38, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've put some examples on my talk page, but just to recap here - look at clarinet (a GA) and its breakout articles E-flat clarinet and bass clarinet for some suggestions. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:02, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 22:26, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - As the initiating editor, I think that we've achieved a fairly good course of action. Keep the article as a separate topic, bring over content from the Banjo article, and then expand and further cite the article where appropriate. The Brazil instrument content may stay, but only in its appropriate context. I recommend that this AfD be closed as "Keep". --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 04:03, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• All you have to do is say the magic words "I choose to withdraw this AFD". I'm the only editor that even came close to a delete vote, and I wouldn't have any objection to that plan. I'll take care of the mechanics of closing.—Kww(talk) 05:40, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. One cannot merge if the destination article doesn't exist, but I would be happy to userfy upon request so the article can be rewritten as a list. Regarding other members of the category, they must be listed for AfD separately as they were not part of this nomination. —Darkwind (talk) 06:29, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Lucas Garner[edit]

Lucas Garner (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This character does not establish notability independent of Known Space through the inclusion of real world information from reliable, third party sources. Most of the information is made up of plot details better suited to Wikia. There is no current assertion for future improvement of the article, so extended coverage is unnecessary. TTN (talk) 16:40, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:32, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:32, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:32, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge into List of Known Space characters. Article needs to be created, obviously. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 19:08, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. There is an extensive body of critical work concerning Niven's writings; he has been a leading SF writer for nearly fifty years. The nominator has made no significant effort to assess the subject's notability, and the flimsy boilerplate rationale they advance is unconvincing and unsupported by rational analysis. It is evident that the nominator is ignoring WP:BEFORE and engaging in inappropriate fait accompli behavior. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 23:48, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Age doesn't implicitly mean there is available coverage, and while I'm sure the novels can probably be covered quite well, simply asserting that such information exists for this specific character without providing any just because of a problem with my nomination helps nothing. I'm focusing on fictional topics, so there is little chance for much variation in my rational. You may have a problem with that, but I would ask that you instead focus on the status of the article. TTN (talk) 23:57, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• given that you are listing things for deletion by acident the evidence suggests that your level of care is approximately nill.Geni (talk) 02:41, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Or that emulator articles all look the same, so having multiple ones open at once in different tabs made it easy to do the wrong one. TTN (talk) 14:58, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• As someone with over 10K deletions I beg to differ.Geni (talk) 16:08, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge into List of Known Space characters or delete. As far as I can recall, Garner isn't the main character in any of Niven's works. We should also consider deleting other denizens of Category:Known Space characters such as Nick Sohl, Alice Jordan, Peter Nordbo and Tyra Nordbo. Clarityfiend (talk) 11:56, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 22:20, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• delete article currently has zero sources and a search of google books [3] does not provide much possibility that WP:GNG can be met.-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 23:04, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment The article creator hadn't been notified. I've just done so (even though s/he hasn't edited since May 2012). -- Trevj (talk) 11:01, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 04:12, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Willpower Tour[edit]

Willpower Tour (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:NOTCRYSTAL applies. Tours get cancelled. If the tour is notable then it will, when it is in progress, be covered in WP:RS. In August 2013 a tour in December 2013 is not notable, it is a plan. Fiddle Faddle 15:29, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:39, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:40, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge or Delete: If the tour has not been confirmed, then Delete. If it is real then Merge within the "tours and promotion" section within the album's article.  11Block |talk 00:31, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:47, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 22:10, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - I'm unable to find coverage for this tour in reliable sources; does not appear to meet WP:NCONCERT TOUR at this time.  Gong show 06:20, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 04:14, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew Colton[edit]

Andrew Colton (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

a) Wikpedia is not a personal homepage or blog, b) the article was written as an autobiography by the subject himself and no considerable third party involvement has shown any initiatve to correct the issues, c) the only source linked does not support the information cited d) nor are there any other reliable sources, and finally e) the subject is not notable. Tnakiped (talk) 22:10, 14 September 2013 (UTC) f) There are almost no links to this article, it is an orphan. Tnakiped (talk) 22:14, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment, leaning delete at this point. A quick Google news archive search shows that he did indeed work for ABC, at least, but other than a few bylines, the only things I am seeing that detail anything Colton himself is doing are self-published through sites like prweb. Of relevance, Mr. Colton's name has been going around Reddit and legal blogs due to a conflict between Reddit and "Boca News Now", a web newspaper that Colton apparently operates. That may draw people to this AFD (I only came to this after reading the Popehat story). Resolute 22:41, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:57, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:57, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:57, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete He has not done anything that makes him notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:35, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I agree with delete. I was also sent here from the controversy but looking at this objectively there is no way Mr Colton should be allowed to use Wikipedia as a advertising tool. The page was created by him and almost the exact same information is on his user page also. I could not find anything of note about this man outside of his own self aggrandizing and self published works. The whole page is thinly veiled spam for his consulting business. The page violates Wikipedia policy on biographies of living persons. Mathswiz (talk) 15:26, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Non-notable. Article is self-promoting and little else. IMO, the ABC work is irrelevant. (Nuggetboy) (talk) (contribs) 23:18, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. WP:NPASR and no prejudice against a merge discussion. Mark Arsten (talk) 04:16, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Gladvertising[edit]

Gladvertising (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Delete - This article is not notable to be added on Wikipedia and this article looks like written for promotion and advertising purpose. AdamSmithUS (talk) 15:30, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:38, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:38, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge/Redirect to facial recognition. Candleabracadabra (talk) 04:37, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There is an article on Facial recognition system but this subject is something more advanced. I have read about it and I believe the subject is notable. Here it's covered in Wired for example. Keep Candleabracadabra (talk) 04:39, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete This is an odd one, and I think I'm on shaky policy grounds voting for its deletion, but this could possibly run afoul of being a neologism. My issue with this is that the term itself was invented by a digital signage technology firm -- 3MGTG -- seeking to promote a product it claimed it was bringing to market. 3MGTG commissioned the "report" that explores the concept and term, essentially as a PR effort. Based on some research into this on Google, the term and report definitely drew some coverage at the time of the release of the report in summer 2011, but it hasn't done anything since. This is potentially a fascinating topic, but if we cover it in this way we're basically helping a 3M digital signage division get the word out about a concept it's brought to market (I think). Maybe a bit of WP:NOTADVERT as well. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 19:40, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Procedural Keep: apparent bad-faith nomination by a blocked sockpuppet account. No prejudice against immediate renomination by an editor in good standing.Vulcan's Forge (talk) 21:48, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's my understanding that this does not apply if an editor in good standing !voted the same as the bad-faith nominator, as I have. "...if subsequent editors added substantive comments in good faith before the nominator's banned status was discovered, the nomination may not be speedily closed (though the nominator's opinion will be discounted in the closure decision)." ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 01:52, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:45, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 22:09, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to facial recognition system. There's relevant information to a real subject here, but it's not something that should have its own page. --erachima talk 00:47, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I'd support merging to facial recognition system. Changing vote to Merge. Probably the only way to consensus here, and that seems reasonable :). ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 14:06, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Mark Arsten (talk) 04:17, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Dudley Brown[edit]

Dudley Brown (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not a notable individual. Furthermore, this individual is apparently a scam artist and his organization (National Association for Gun Rights) is nothing more than a scam organization. The content of the bio article on Dudley Brown (as well as the NAGR article) appears to have been created by Dudley Brown himself and largely fabricated (for example, contrary to what the bio article says, Dudley is NOT a college graduate). The internet is replete with info on this scam being run by NAGR and Dudley Brown. Examples: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7. ROG5728 (talk) 21:33, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• CommentKeep - just a note, if he's a scam artist, it doesn't necessarily exclude him from notability. In fact, if any reliable sources discuss him/his alleged scamming in-depth, that makes him notable. This might just be a question of content (i.e., false content) instead of one of notability. Potential sources about Brown: http://blogs.denverpost.com/thespot/2013/07/29/dudley-brown-recall-election/98956/ http://www.5280.com/magazine/2013/08/Dudley-browns-war http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/04/03/dudley-brown-hunt-democrats_n_3007267.html http://www.denverpost.com/recent/ci_22650330/colorado-gun-lobbyist-says-group-not-connected-gay?source=rss http://kdvr.com/2013/07/18/dudley-brown-defends-protesting-at-memorial/ — Preceding signed comment added by Cymru.lass (talk • contribs) 23:47, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Either way, most (or all) of the content in the Dudley Brown article seems to have been falsified or glamorized (not to mention self-authored), so I don't see any point in keeping it. ROG5728 (talk) 23:53, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If the subject's notable, and this can be proven with verifiable, reliable sources, then the article being in a poor state isn't really a reason to delete it. You should take a look at WP:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions, particularly the section "Surmountable problems". I'm going to give the article a quick one-over and see what I can do with it for a start. — Preceding signed comment added by Cymru.lass (talk • contribs) 23:57, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, also, another source: http://kdvr.com/2013/04/03/dudley-brown-named-in-lawsuit-over-anti-civil-unions-mailer/ — Preceding signed comment added by Cymru.lass (talk • contribs) 00:23, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Colorado-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:26, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Firearms-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:26, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:26, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep -- As Cymru.lass points out above this nomination is not based on any of the recognized criteria for deletion. As Cymru.lass points out above, nominator's concerns, like that the article says Brown graduated, could be addressed by simple editing.

THe Nomination asserts Brown is a con artist -- but the only substantiation for this assertion are from gun rights blog sites. These aren't WP:Reliable sources. A google news search for "Dudley Brown" scam seems to find no genuine matches. What the blog-sites say is that Brown's organization targets gun enthusiasts with email requests for donations. The blog-sites say Brown's organization claims Brown's pro-gun activities put him at risk, and he needs financial support for legal defense -- but that Brown has not actually undertaken any pro-gun act worth supporting, or meriting opposition from anti-gun groups, or legal authorities.

The blog-sites the nomination cites seem to be saying Brown is an opportunist, trying to cash in on the huge amount of money gun-enthusiasts have demonstrated they will send to the NRA. Some of those blog-sites seem to be speculating that Brown is not a genuine gun-enthusiast at all, but is actually a closet-liberal, whose genuine plan is to reduce the NRA's effectiveness by diverting donations from the NRA to his own group. I see no RS backing up the gun-enthusiast blog-sites' claims. If there were RS to back up those claims they would add to Brown's notability, not erode it.

The NRA is free to run its own wiki, with its own rules. If Brown is a notable individual, suppressing coverage of him, to protect the cause of gun-rights, is not consistent with the wikipedia's policies. Geo Swan (talk) 16:58, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

GeoSwan, virtually anyone on any gun-related website on the internet recognizes NAGR as a scam, regardless of whether or not you found news sources supporting it; the sources I cited are only the tip of the iceberg. A simple Google search gives thousands of results. The point is, the article would be a tiny, irrelevant stub if we were to go through and delete all of the random misinformation added by Brown when he created it. The article currently violates a number of Wikipedia policies and it was created for the sole purpose of self-promotion anyway. Deleting it has nothing to do with the "NRA running its own wiki" or "suppressing coverage of him to protect the cause of gun rights." Grow up. ROG5728 (talk) 01:04, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• You wrote: "The article currently violates a number of Wikipedia policies ... and it was created for the sole purpose of self-promotion anyway."

1. If you think the article violates policies is there a reason why you didn't list those policy violations in your initial nomination? Is there a reason why you haven't listed those policy violations in your followup?
2. You do realize that deletion is not the recommended solution for all instances when articles lapse from policy? When an article on a notable topic lapses from WP:NPOV, for instance, the recommended approach is to rewrite the portions of the article that show bias.

   You may not realize this, but your assertion that "...the article currently violates..." leaves open the possibility that you believe that the policy lapses you think you see are fixable -- and are thus not grounds for deletion.

3. With regard to "...it was created for the sole purpose of self-promotion anyway." I looked at the contribution history, I saw no evidence that a single individual created the article. I spent some time looking at the references to the article. I saw real RS, like CNN, quoting Mr Brown as if he was a significant, legitimate figure in the pro-gun movement. I don't see where the article goes beyond what the RS support.
4. The revision history shows exactly two edits by User:DudleyBrown [4] & [5]. These two edits were not self-promotion. They did not lapse from WP:COI. 75 other people edited this article. Are you asserting that you somehow know that one of those other people is secretly Dudley Brown? Or that several of those other people are secretly Dudley Brown? This is a very serious allegation, for which you have offered exactly zero proof.
5. You write: "...anyone on any gun-related website on the internet recognizes NAGR as a scam..."

   It is simply not relevant what gun-related blog-sites recognize when you can't find any WP:RS that assert Brown, or NAGR are scams. Your gun-related blog-sites are not RS.

   Suppose you find some genuine RS that say Brown was a con-artist who employed scams? Those RS would help establish Brown's notabiity. Anyone who fooled the MSM into thinking he was a legitimate gun advocate, only to be exposes as a fraud artist a decade later? That would be notable. Geo Swan (talk) 03:16, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• DELETE. This article is clearly self promotion and we cannot allow it to stand. If we do, then we will see thousands if not tens of thousands of people seeking notoriety by starting articles like this one, just to see their name and face on Wikipedia. If someone wants their 15 minutes of fame, let them do it someplace else.--RAF910 (talk) 20:07, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's not a valid reason for deletion. I would suggest you take a look at WP:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions, particularly the section "Surmountable problems". — Preceding signed comment added by Cymru.lass (talk • contribs) 22:09, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • You are mistaken...self-promotion is strictly prohibited by Wikipedia and this article is clearly self-promotion.--RAF910 (talk) 23:24, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • Self promotion is not allowed. However, no one has offered any justification to back up the claim this article contains self promotion.

      If you are going to offer links to wikidocuments to back up your arguments, could you please try harder to make sure the wiidocuments actually do back up those arguments? Wikipedia: Self-promotion says nothing about deleting articles that have had self-promotional material added to them.

      76 individuals edited this article. If it was the work of a single non-notable individual, who made up a fantasy article about himself or herself, it would qualify for speedy deletion. However, when we have an article where dozens of good faith individuals made over a hundred good faith edits, there is no way that article should be deleted if the subject of the article added or rewrote paragraphs of self-promotional material. Rather we should merely excise or rewrite the self-promotional paragraphs. Geo Swan (talk) 03:34, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

      • I second what Geo Swan said. If you'd take a look at the page I linked above (WP:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions), specifically WP:SURMOUNTABLE, you'll see what I mean. If an article's subject is notable, self-promotion is a surmountable problem. — Preceding signed comment added by Cymru.lass (talk • contribs) 18:04, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Actually, almost all of the "good faith" edits on the page history were nothing but cleanup attempts (e.g. removals of blatant NPOV violations like these ones and this one). About 90% of the edits I see on the page history there are reverts and blanking. When the article was first created (and for years afterward), it was obviously filled with severe violations of WP:V, WP:NPOV, and WP:COI. Now that the article has been cleaned up to some extent (thanks in part to Cymru.lass), there's not much content left over, and much of it is either not noteworthy or else not directly related to Brown himself. For example, the article says "At the Colorado GOP convention in April 2012, RMGO and Dudley Brown supported pro-gun candidates..." So what? Is that really noteworthy? Of course not, and the whole article is like that. It's pure fluff. It could be reduced to a single sentence without losing any valuable content. ROG5728 (talk) 03:55, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Edit history doesn't really matter. If vandalism, violations of NPOV and COI are such a huge deal, the page can be protected. The question is, is this guy notable? I'm leaning towards yes. He's had significant coverage in more than one reliable source. The rest of the issues with this article are surmountable problems, and as you can see, editors are already at work on that. — Preceding signed comment added by Cymru.lass (talk • contribs) 18:04, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:23, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep—A zillion G-News hits; here are three random ones [1] [2] [3]

If the article is broken (and I cast no opinion on if it is or not), then fix it. AfD is not for content cleanup. Livit⇑^Eh?/_What? 16:10, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 22:09, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Many reliable sources have been identified above; AFD is not cleanup. DavidLeighEllis (talk) 20:20, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. —Darkwind (talk) 06:34, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

2012 Butler Bulldogs women's soccer team[edit]

2012 Butler Bulldogs women's soccer team (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

• The find sources function above is unreliable for seasonal articles as it searches for "2012 Butler Bulldogs women's soccer team" as one single term because it is in quotation marks. If you search "Butler Bulldogs women's soccer team" and "2012", it returns more than seven times as many results. Going further, if you search "Butler Bulldogs" "Women's soccer" "2012", it returns more than 660 times as many results. Both of those examples provide pertinent results for the article at hand while still excluding wikipedia as a possible source. City boy77 (talk) 03:46, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Non-notable sports season. No independent refs that mention this team. Stuartyeates (talk) 02:54, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article follows the same conventions as many other collegiate sports articles for individual seasons. Since Stuartyeates pointed out the shortcomings of the article, I provided many more citations that are not published by Butler. The sources provide both verifiability and neutrality. City boy77 (talk) 03:33, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I acknowledge that there are now sources. The problem is that each of the games is now sourced to a non-independent source---namely their opponent. Stuartyeates (talk) 07:00, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 03:33, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Indiana-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 03:33, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 03:34, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 03:34, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. What is our policy with regards to the notability of sports event? I am seeing a lot of such articles on Wikipedia, and the coverage is rarely in mainstream, reliable sources. This is indeed a problem worth wider discussion. (Please ping me if any comments are left for me) --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:21, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • The policy is at WP:NSEASONS, User:Piotrus. Stuartyeates (talk) 08:48, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - non-notable sports season, fails WP:NSEASONS and WP:GNG. GiantSnowman 09:50, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:59, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Keep - WP:NSEASONS provides that "In cases where the individual [college] season notability is insufficient for an article, multiple seasons may be grouped together in a single article. This grouping might be based on head coaches, conference affiliation, or any other reasonable standard that results in sufficient coverage for the period to warrant an article." I'm not saying I do think this season falls short, but if others think it does perhaps we could merge it and the 2013 article into something like Butler Bulldogs in Atlantic 10 women's soccer? Clavdia chauchat (talk) 18:28, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Changed to keep, because it's well-referenced and the two delete votes only amount to WP:IDONTLIKEIT. I still think a merge would also be an acceptable outcome. Clavdia chauchat (talk) 21:29, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - It's not a case of don't like it at all. It's to do with the fact that there is nothing in the article that fulfills the requirements for college articles in WP:NSEASONS. Additionally, although sourced, the sources are just to WP:ROUTINE reports on various college sites detailing match reports. There is no evidence that this season has received any notable coverage outside of the usual basic match reporting. Fenix down (talk) 11:28, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - Passes WP:GNG and provides season-specific information for Butler Bulldogs women's soccer. Hmlarson (talk) 22:18, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - per GS, notion that club passes GNG is untrue as though a wide section of refs are provided, these are no more that routine match reports. Not a national championship season, no indication that this is anything other than your usual bog-standard reasonable season performance. Can't really see what merging seasons would achieve, there is nothing I can see to indicate that they have done anything in particular of significance in that conference to date. Fenix down (talk) 12:57, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein  06:04, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 22:06, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete—Fails every single aspect of WP:NSEASONS and all coverage of this particular season is WP:ROUTINE. Article is 10% prose and 90% statistics, which is specifically what NSEASONS warns against. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Livitup (talk • contribs) 14:04, 17 September 2013‎
• Delete Fails WP:NSEASONS and WP:GNG with only routine sports coverage.204.126.132.231 (talk) 19:40, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. —Darkwind (talk) 06:35, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Matsuricon[edit]

Matsuricon (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Limited coverage by reliable and independent sources. Esw01407 (talk) 01:24, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:36, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:37, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Can any sources be found here? [6] - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 02:18, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• I can't find anything worth mentioning, mostly press releases and sites that would most likely not meet notability. Esw01407 (talk) 13:43, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - In my books I see minor mentions, MatsuriCon is listed by name and website on a single page divided into four regions of the United States (and 1 in Canada). The two pages contain 33 conventions and Matsuricon is one of six conventions listed in the central region. This can be found on page 210 of Understanding Manga and Anime by Brenner. People within the anime industry also frequent the event and have some small journalism as a result, but while the individual page is of borderline to questionable notability the conventions themselves are pages that are difficult to work on. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 13:12, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Can you find and cite the book? A mention in a book is notable, depends on what it is though. I would like more secondary sources on this and so far have found nothing newsworthy. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 23:32, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• I have added the book Understanding Manga and Anime, which is what I like User:ChrisGualtieri is referring to. Kyuukurochan (talk) 04:21, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• It is not much of a note, but it is one of the few cons listed. I'd say the mere mention over other lesser cons says something, but that is my personal belief. The more popular conventions are listed there and most small (even 1000+ visitors) are not listed.ChrisGualtieri (talk) 01:53, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - More sources have been added from the Columbus Dispatch citations following the addition of the section on the "Distant Worlds" event of 2012. - — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kyuukurochan (talk • contribs) 03:02, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• It looks like what you added ([7]) is a press release. Press releases just say what and when the event is, but does not go into a detailed chat about the subject. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 03:22, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Delete - Based on what I have seen so far I do not see any reliable non press release sources covering the event. AnimeCons.com is a primary source, animecons.com just talks about the guests (As opposed to the convention its-self) and the Columbus Dispatch is a press release. Im not sure what the Columbus Monthy is and would reconsider pending a citation of a book of some sort as mentioned above. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 03:31, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• The Columbus Dispatch is a third party newspaper column in Columbus, OH. It is a source listed on the sister convention Ohayocon and had been deemed a useful source. Columbus Monthly is also owned by them. Kyuukurochan (talk) 03:55, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• WP:OSE @ Ohayocon. It might be posted by a newspaper, but it very much looks like a press release, it has no coverage from the convention. Esw01407 (talk) 20:47, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Source Question - I know that this source has been offered after a search, but I'm not sure about the newsworthy aspect of it, though it does cover the event. http://www.alltasteexplosion.com/?p=3071 Kyuukurochan (talk) 03:41, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• This appears to be a fan source and I do not believe would meet being a reliable source. Esw01407 (talk) 20:47, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• It may not be the best damn source, but we need sources of any type here. "Matsuricon teamed up with popular Final Fantasy concert, “Distant Worlds”" COME ON! That's really big. It has had special guests like "Cathy Weseluck, best known as Spike the Dragon from “My Little Pony: Friendship is Magic!”" This is notability, this provides context, this is a reason for its inclusion. More sources like this are bound to exist, whether or not they reach New York Times level is irrelevant, it gives a reason why it is notable. After all, how many places get an international and special orchestra visit from Nobuo Uematsu's "Distant Worlds"? ChrisGualtieri (talk) 01:50, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• I can't really agree with your reasoning, why lower Wikipedia's standard for one page? Other conventions have no problems getting the bare minimum of sources that provide adequate information. Nobuo Uematsu has appeared at US conventions eight times, so it's not exactly rare (According to animecons.com). Esw01407 (talk) 13:24, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 22:05, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy keep per WP:SK#1. Nominator withdrew and no other delete !votes are present. (Non-administrator closure.) Northamerica1000^(talk) 23:40, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Young People Matter[edit]

Young People Matter (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Disputer PROD. Reason was "While there is a strong possibility that this is a notable organisation, the article fails to assert its notability, and does not verify it in reliable sources. Without these items it may not remain here. It is not notable simply because it is a charity and does good works." Fiddle Faddle 22:02, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn My view is that the concerns have been addressed. Fiddle Faddle 22:59, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:57, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:57, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. —Darkwind (talk) 06:37, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sherrie Lea[edit]

Sherrie Lea (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Whatever this article is about it does not appear to be about Sherrie Lea. Almost all of the article is given over to an advert for one Adrian Finkelstein. It looks to me very much like WP:COATRACK and WP:VANISPAMCRUFTISEMENT and thus has no place here. Is Sherrie Lea even notable in her own right? Fiddle Faddle 21:49, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Not a notable musician.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:15, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Upon further investigation, sources indicate some notability for the book (Marilyn Monroe Returns: The Healing of a Soul) but not enough for an article about Sherrie Lea Laird herself.Reluctant Keep and remove the unreliably sourced Finkelstein stuff. Searching "Sherrie Lea Laird" turns up enough notability for a stub about the singer, but not much more. - LuckyLouie (talk) 00:08, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:56, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:56, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:56, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:56, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Question Not my field, but what is it that shows her notability as a singer if none of her recordings are notable? DGG ( talk ) 15:16, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You're right, turns out all of the coverage regarding her focuses on the "Marilyn reincarnation" claims [8], [9], [10]. - LuckyLouie (talk) 15:30, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

? For me, were I closing this discussion, I would now read your opinion as neutral at best, tending to deletion. Does that match your own thoughts? Fiddle Faddle 15:33, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Her notability seems borderline at this point with only those 3 sources I found, so I'll wait a bit to see if others dig up more reliable sources that would support a standalone article. If not, there may be a target article her claims fit into, although nothing comes to mind at the moment. - LuckyLouie (talk) 15:46, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• The book Marilyn Monroe Returns: The Healing of a Soul is notable. Maybe this should be moved there and rewritten as about the book. duffbeerforme (talk) 00:25, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Either delete or restructure as an article on the book. I regard the reincarnation claims as a load of rubbish, but that is my POV. My view tends to be that she is an academic's case study. The study may be notable, but that does not mean that the subject is. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:31, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• As far as I can tell this person is not dead and BLP still applies. Can people bear that in mind please before making grand claims against this person in the article. I've seen zero evidence of legitimate academic study, but rather someone making money through a book written for the general public. Self-published and unreliable sources should not be used to make claims about a BLP. IRWolfie- (talk) 20:32, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to Ultra Monsters. Mark Arsten (talk) 04:18, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Earthtron[edit]

Earthtron (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This character does not establish notability independent of The Return Of Ultraman through the inclusion of real world information from reliable, third party sources. Most of the information is made up of overly in-depth plot details better suited to Wikia. There is no current assertion for future improvement of the article, so extended coverage is unnecessary. TTN (talk) 20:35, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Unimportant article. --One of the Many! (talk) 20:38, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:52, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:52, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:52, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:53, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as non-notable. The character makes a few appearances throughout the series, so a redirect to Ultra Monsters may be in order, but I doubt that anyone is actually going to search for this. Nonetheless, I would support a redirect if consensus goes that way. The article has no sources, and I can find no sources. I suggest deletion. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 03:06, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect per the above poster's partially correct logic filtered through WP:ATD: If there's a valid merge or redirect target, we merge or redirect it, since redirects are cheap and sourced content can always go to a parent article. Jclemens (talk) 04:21, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy delete. Speedy deletion WP:G4 — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 01:54, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Pink Friday: The Pinkprint (album)[edit]

Pink Friday: The Pinkprint (album) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:CRYSTAL. Might be a rumor or hoax. Anyway, it's not notable. Taylor Trescott - ^{my talk} + _{my edits} 20:23, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:51, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:51, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was withdrawn. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:31, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Adhisaya Ulagam 3D[edit]

Adhisaya Ulagam 3D (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This was sent to the incubator over a year ago and has not been improved at all in that time. The film's official website is gone, it is not listed at IMDB, and I can find no recent mentions of it, so it seems likely it was never completed or released. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:10, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:49, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:50, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:50, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:50, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep and tag for expansion and additional sourcing back in mainspace. While July 2012 may have been a tad TOO SOON, and while yes, it was ignored while in the incubator, we do not expect any film to remain in the news and we do not usually delete for lack of effort . Point here being, it appears through sources that this was finally released August 10, 2012.[11][12][13][14][15] AND YES it has received review and commentary.[16] WP:NF is met. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 03:18, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I'm confused. I searched the Times of India as it is usually the best source for this sort of thing and came up empty. I don't know what I did wrong there but obviously your search-fu exceeds my own. Since you have proffered sources that refute the central presumption of my nomination, that this film was never released, I happily withdraw the nomination and will close this AFD. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:29, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Mark Arsten (talk) 04:19, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Anna Sarah Kugler[edit]

Anna Sarah Kugler (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Disputed PROD. Reason was "Many people are the First Something. That does not make them notable. No full notability is asserted and verifiec in reliable sources, which may be paper sources, naturally. Without this material the article may not remain here." Fiddle Faddle 19:42, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Her work as a medical missionary is notable and leads to her being referenced in biographical compilations on the topic. Her books also seem to pass notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:43, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Inclusion in the Encyclopedia of American women and religion, Famous American Women, and The Westminster Handbook to Women in American Religious History would suggest that she meets WP:BASIC. Gobōnobō ^{+ c} 22:12, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:48, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:48, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:48, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:48, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:48, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as close paraphrase of copyrighted material. Bwrs (talk) 22:59, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep She is obviously notable. If the article is kept, I will undertake to do a rewrite, with additional references and no close paraphrasing. --MelanieN (talk) 00:41, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep significant historical figure--but needs rewriting as suggested, and I certaint trust MelanieN for knowing how to do it correctly. DGG ( talk ) 04:20, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Thanks for that vote of confidence, DGG. That plus the encouraging trend at this discussion inspired me to go ahead and do the rewrite. Anyone who hasn't looked at it recently is encouraged to take another look. --MelanieN (talk) 20:45, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per entries in three biographical dictionaries. -- Michael Scott Cuthbert (talk) 03:17, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep -- Clearly a significant figure in Church History. A paraphrase (or summary) is not a breach of copyright. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:17, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 04:20, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Naking[edit]

Naking (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Badly written about ephemeral trend. Geschichte (talk) 19:30, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete There are not enough sources to establish that this is a trend worth having an article on.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:33, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I initially PRODded this as a neologism, but the author cleared the prod after it expired but before anyone got rid of the article. Still stands to be deleted for the same reason and for the reasons above. Deadbeef 20:32, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as non-notable. Article does not establish notability, and my own searches turn up nothing useful. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 20:34, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Hard to judge if this will be short-lived, as if you search for this hashtag on photo sharing sites you'll finds hoards of recent photos. Nonetheless outside of a few tumblr blogs there's not much to support this as "notable" trend. — MusikAnimal ^talk 21:32, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. No evidence of notability. --Dmol (talk) 21:53, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:45, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - The topic appears to not meet WP:N; it exists, but not finding wp:sigcov in reliable sources at this time. Northamerica1000^(talk) 23:47, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to house music. Mark Arsten (talk) 04:23, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Vocal house[edit]

Vocal house (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Sourceless, possibly made-up genre. Description easily synonymous to Garage House, Italo House or Diva house and artist examples given are part of already-defined genres ranging from progressive house, funky house to genres that aren't even house at all. F-22 Raptör^{Aces High♠} 19:15, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to house music. Not a made-up genre, I'm able to find hashtags and categories on several music sites, but without any reliable sources, there's not much to this article other than original research. — MusikAnimal ^talk 21:44, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:43, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to House music, where this subgenre is mentioned. While the subject is mentioned in sources such as these, I'm not seeing enough to warrant an independent article.  Gong show 06:11, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. KTC (talk) 19:20, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Cities of History[edit]

Cities of History (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not yet released game with no indication of notability. Only link is to a Wikia site for the game. I declined the CSD tag applied (not applicable IMO as I can't tell whether this is online based or home based), and my subsequent PROD has been declined by the author. Peridon (talk) 19:12, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:NVG and likely WP:CRYSTAL. Not able to find anything to support notability. Wikia source is user-submitted content, and even states the game is in development and "information may not be accurate". — MusikAnimal ^talk 21:53, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 22:42, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:42, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them#Film adaptation. —Darkwind (talk) 06:39, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them (film)[edit]

Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them (film) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:NFILM. Shooting has yet to start. I was gonna redirect, but I see attempts at that have been reverted. Taylor Trescott - ^{my talk} + _{my edits} 19:05, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Taylor Trescott - ^{my talk} + _{my edits} 19:10, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment It's been in the press - I can't find the paper for the moment, but I read about it in yesterday's Metro (UK). It'll probably be notable even if the project goes legs up. Peridon (talk) 19:36, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Per above, the Harry Potter franchise is so enormous that I think this will get a lot of coverage, such that even if it doesn't go through there will be enough information for an informative and culturally relevant article. In other words, I think this project, through its connection to the HP universe, defies the notability guideline as it is a topic of social importance and applicability regardless of whether or not a final product comes out of it. That said, I'm no expert in film or the film branch of the wiki, so I'm going to withhold my vote for now. ~ Boomur [talk] 20:36, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• keep We've reached a point, given the enormous scale of the Potter franchise, that this is definitely notable. Either as a film, or as a mass suicide of heartbroken fans. Andy Dingley (talk) 21:12, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The sources are pretty clear that this is a done deal and the fact that its even being talked about is notable because JKR had said that she was going to be done unless the script and story were good, and of course this is her first screen play attempt.--JOJ ^Hutton 21:14, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect for now to J.K. Rowling without prejudice for later undeletion or recreation. I have absolutely no doubt that due to the screenwriter and public expectations this topic will doubtless be phenomenally notable in a few months. But for now, under policy, guideline, and essay we can write of it at the target without that target being overwhelmed. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 03:27, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• I think a temporary redirect to the article about the 2001 book by J.K. Rowling, where this is already mentioned, is also a valid consideration. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 02:09, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename to "Development of ..." 122.172.157.215 (talk) 19:53, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to "Development of Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them" or something similar. Due to its connection to the Harry Potter series, it seems clear that this is notable, and would probably stay that way even if it was cancelled for some reason. While it was only just announced, it seems likely that it will be in the press a lot more up until the time that it comes out (if nothing else, there will probably be a lot of speculation in the press, as there has been already for Star Wars Episode VII, for example). Alphius (talk) 03:33, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them for now. The "Development of..." articles actually seem to be for films that have been in development for years. And while I'm still sure this will warrant its own article soon enough, I suppose it's fair to say that pretty much all of the coverage right now is only based on the press release, and that, thus, this probably doesn't need its own article yet. Alphius (talk) 14:59, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:NFF which states "Films that have not been confirmed by reliable sources to have commenced principal photography should not have their own articles, as budget issues, scripting issues and casting issues can interfere with a project well ahead of its intended filming date". It also goes on to state that "Until the start of principal photography, information on the film might be included in articles about its subject material, if available". As very little is known at this stage, there is no justification for an exception, and a breakout article is not warranted. We don't even know if this will be the title of the film anyway. Also, per WP:CRYSTAL, "Wikipedia is not a collection of product announcements and rumors". As this amounts to little more than reports on a press release, then we should be following this policy. --Rob Sinden (talk) 07:51, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Good grief - this is one of the most popular franchises right now and has eleventy billion people googling it as a result of the news that the film is coming out. It makes sense for Wikipedia to provide a suitable article. It makes sense not to have speculative articles about things that are only getting minor coverage from fan websites, but this is getting plenty of mainstream news coverage. --B (talk) 19:47, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

All of the news coverage is a reaction to a single press release. Anything outside of the press release is speculative. --Rob Sinden (talk) 07:51, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

While I don't opine one way or the other on whether or not that is the case, even speculation can be notable. The topic has received overwhelming media coverage. Even if that media coverage is speculation, that doesn't change anything. --B (talk) 15:56, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"Overwhelming media coverage" of one single fact - that J.K. Rowling is working on a screenplay based around a book. This is everything we know, which is not enough to warrant a standalone article. --Rob Sinden (talk) 16:01, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep or Redirect per MQS If there's not currently enough for a stand alone article, this should at least be in JKR's article with a redirect to it. Peridon (talk) 09:12, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• To be fair, I think a temporary redirect to the article about the 2001 book by J.K. Rowling, where this adaptation is already mentioned, is also a valid consideration. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 02:09, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I'm starting to think a redirect might be the best choice; Schmidt brings up a good point. So long as the section on the article about the book is expanded somewhat to include some of the relevant information/quotations from this article, I think a redirect might be the best choice — till shooting has begun, at least. Still not voting quite yet, though. ~ Boomur [☎] 02:47, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm okay with a redirect per WP:NFF, but information is currently in three different places, including also Harry Potter (film series)#Future. --Rob Sinden (talk) 08:00, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

While related, the story-line of the book does predate the timeline of Harry by 70 years. And I think we can speak about it in multiple locations, but as Rowling’s screenwriting debut, and planned as the first movie in a new series, a temporary redirect to either author or the fictional literary work falls in line with how we've done such in the past. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 08:24, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Fantastic_Beasts_and_Where_to_Find_Them#Film_adaptation, which provides the reader with confirmable information on the film while still fitting our logical guidelines for future films.--Yaksar (let's chat) 20:13, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect Policy is clear here, but it's also so very popular, it deserves notice. McKay (talk) 19:58, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect per Schmidt above, but expand the Film section on the article for the book (and of course, relocate to its own article once more information/confirmation is available). ~ Boomur [☎] 20:25, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename - Having an article with purely the title may not bode well at this point, but we can have it renamed "Development of...". DarthBotto _talk•cont 18:17, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 04:25, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Double connecting rod engine[edit]

Double connecting rod engine (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Challenged prod.

Unsourced, OR article on one editor's new invention. Good luck with the patent application, but this is very much _not_ what WP is here for. Andy Dingley (talk) 18:34, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as WP:OR describing an invention. The inventor's animated GIF needs to go too. Chiswick Chap (talk) 18:40, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:56, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete unless good evidence of widespread coverage appears. As to the device, I can't see it catching on unless some great benefit over simple gearing up is shown. Intriguing, but an unnecessary complication, and I can only see application in low-speed diesels if it does work. There again, they once thought rockets wouldn't work in space... Peridon (talk) 19:48, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing to do with the notability, and someone correct me if I'm wrong, but this could only be used on single cylinder engines without going for a gearwheel or con rod connection(s) to an output shaft. Also, doubling the crank speed won't increase the power output, so I can't see the point for any road engine (where there has to be gearing anyway), and for marine low speed diesels, the normal speed is fine (the medium and high speed engines being geared down to the correct propeller speed). Peridon (talk) 15:55, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Ingenious, but proof of concept and sources lacking. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:54, 14 September 2013 (UTC).[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was return to incubator. —Darkwind (talk) 06:44, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Entity (film)[edit]

Entity (film) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This was at AFD in February and the result was to incubate. Indeed the article incubator contains almost nothing but articles on not-yet-released films. So, I checked the link to the film's official website. Have a look for yourself. And on their official facebook page there are fans asking when this is coming out and getting no reply. And they apprently had a kickstarter campaign that was abruptly cancelled. Add that all up, and it looks pretty likely that this film has been cancelled. If by some chance it gets back on track in the future it can easily be restored, but for the moment this doesn't look like something we should have an article on, incubating or otherwise. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:14, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:54, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:54, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

• Send back to the incubator. While I can appreciate the nom returning this to mainspace in order to AFD it under WP:NFF, TOO SOON and lack of improvements while incubated rather than MFD'ing it... perhaps because HERE it will gain more eyes and input... the arguments at the previous AFD are still, if not more applicable. We have a film with an expected 2013 release date whose production has received coverage in reliable sources. If deleted, let it be without prejudice toward undeletion or recreation when it is finally released. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 03:40, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Return to incubator. If the space in there is a problem, I'm willing to userfy this myself. I've actually been keeping an eye on sourcing for this, so the lack of edits hasn't been for lack of eyes on it. If you can confirm that this has been cancelled then I have no true issue with it being completely deleted, but given the amount of coverage it's gotten I'm a little hesitant at outright deleting all of it. A post in the IMDb forums claims that they're delaying the release in order to improve the movie, ([17]) although I know the fallibility of anything on that site. I can't find the facebook page, but that doesn't necessarily mean anything. I'm not exactly skilled at finding the official pages of anything on there since there are so many groups and pages to weed through. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 17:46, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• I messaged one of the film's directors and he directed me to the film's producers via the facebook page, as he said it's pretty much just in their hands now. According to the video on their YT account they're still working on it in some form or fashion, so there are plans to release it at an unspecified date. It's a little frustrating as this was a film I was actually looking forward to seeing, but all we can do now is incubate it or userfy it. Again, I'm willing to userfy it if that's a big concern as far as incubator space goes. (I know that it's frustrating to see a long list of articles that get little to no attention.) Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 13:58, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge to Dragon deities. —Darkwind (talk) 06:47, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Chronepsis[edit]

Chronepsis (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This character does not establish notability independent of Dungeons & Dragons through the inclusion of real world information from reliable, third party sources. Most of the information is made up of overly in-depth plot details better suited to Wikia. There is no current assertion for future improvement of the article, so extended coverage is unnecessary. TTN (talk) 17:43, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:08, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:08, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Question You claim that the article is mostly plot details. Where are the plot details you speak of? I see only a general description of the deity. Thanks, --Mark viking (talk) 20:57, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Description of a fictional character is plot detail, because the character and its in-unverse life/appearance/etc is fictional, thus part of the plot. Fictional elements do not exist independently of their fiction.Folken de Fanel (talk) 21:55, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The plot of a work of fiction is not equal to the whole work of fiction itself, it is simply the sequence of events within a work of fiction. See Plot (narrative) and Wikipedia:Manual of Style (writing about fiction)#Plot summaries to gain a better understanding of the concepts of plot and plot summary. In this article, there is no plot summary, there is only character description. My question still stands. --Mark viking (talk) 17:34, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You're referring to exposition (what "introduces all of the main characters in the story. It shows how they relate to one another, what their goals and motivations are, and the kind of person they are"), which is also part of the plot.Wikipedia:Manual of Style (writing about fiction)#Plot summaries also covers "character descriptions or biographies".Folken de Fanel (talk) 18:11, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to Dragon deities, where Chronepsis already has an entry. --Mark viking (talk) 20:57, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to Dragon deities. This does not seem notable, and I can not find reliable sources. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 21:00, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep or merge into List of Dungeons & Dragons deities. BOZ (talk) 07:15, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• transwiki to some fanboy site that loves this kind of trivia. With regard to Wikipedia, there are no independent third party sources, so per [[WP:GNG| the options are delete or if there is suitable content and a suitable target, merge. Merging only primary sourced content generally just transfers the issues from this article to the target article. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 17:51, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge into List of Dungeons & Dragons deities. Fails WP:GNG.Folken de Fanel (talk) 21:55, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Arguments above regarding independence of sourcing set the bar too high. Fact is, multiple separate companies have published material detailing this fictional element in multiple separate (although admittedly related) game systems. Jclemens (talk) 01:16, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • While the companies may be "separate" if you ignore the fact that one bought out the other, and the third produces its content under an official licensee agreement, the fact is that you have yet to actually point to the policy that says "D&D articles dont need to meet independent sourcing requirements that all other articles need to." -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 01:40, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Procedural close as redirect/merge to Dragon deities. This article was one of a series of related articles initially merged by User:Drilnoth November 2008; the merge was reverted by an IP-only editor two and a half years later. This suggests tacit agreement that the redirect and merge was acceptable to the majority of editors associated with the wikiproject. In my opinion, a return to the status quo would serve the encyclopedia better than a prolonged and potentially heated debate over each individual deity article. (Note: there are other similar article currently nominated for deletion; I will copy this !vote/recommendation to those affected as well.)Vulcan's Forge (talk) 00:41, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 04:30, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

MBS Television Network[edit]

MBS Television Network (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not sure if this is a hoax, very badly written or what. Appears to be an article about a fake "online" TV station based on the Sims 2 game. There's a link to a website, but I think all it's there to do is prop up the online fake nature. If someone can show otherwise I'm glad to withdraw the nomination, but as it stands right now it's either a hoax, or a badly written article about a fake online TV station based on the Sims 2 Cybercity Riverview. Either way don't think it meets guidelines for inclusion. Also the fact that this is the only contribution by the user (who appears to logged out for the final updates) and it just makes me wonder. Caffeyw (talk) 17:40, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 18:04, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:04, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete for failing WP:V. A free website at Weebly only indicates that a suspected hoax is slightly more elaborate than most. Searches get only the Weebly site and the Wikipedia article. • Gene93k (talk) 18:19, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete for being patent nonsense and a hoax. Konveyor Belt ^{yell at me} 18:33, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Nonsense, hoax, and "sourced" site is just asking for the copyright hammer to be slammed down ("Local 4"'s logo is WDIV-TV's in blue). Nate • (chatter) 23:04, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete; when the website for the supposed "CFRI-DT" actually states on its homepage that it is a "ficitional [sic] television station," (and for that matter, the article itself also says it's a "non-profit fictionalized television station") then obviously it doesn't exist. --WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:02, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. —Darkwind (talk) 06:52, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

National Institute of Fashion Technology Ludhiana[edit]

National Institute of Fashion Technology Ludhiana (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Institute that has yet to be setup. Sole announcement is about the Indian Minister of Textiles announcing there would be an institute setup. Fails notability, fails as toosoon, and fails under schools since we don't even know how it will be configured/accredited at this point nor is there a firm date for opening. Caffeyw (talk) 17:17, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:58, 14 September 2013 (UTC) Note: Please consider reading WP:INDAFD which includes some points about WikiProject India AFDs. Those may or may not be applicable here. Tito☸Dutta 18:43, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:58, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:58, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:58, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: Another bad faith AFD from this editor. A National Institute does not pass GNG? Is it a joke? I can see lots of articles in Google. Too Soon is a bad argument, it is not a film. Work has already started. --Tito☸Dutta 18:43, 14 September 2013 (UTC) Need some more time study. Most probably it was proposed first in 2007 or 2008, but, I have not got any online source (other than dead link). I am trying to find offline sources, it might be difficult. --Tito☸Dutta 02:34, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

First off, you take to applying bad faith anytime you disagree despite Wiki policy to the contrary. Secondly the Institute has not been setup, it's only in the planning stages. TOOSOON can apply to anything, and an institute that has only been discussed is clearly toosoon. All that's been discussed so far is the Minister of Textiles stating there's a need for one in Ludhiana, Punjab. According to the article funding for the Institute has not even been decided. It's NOT the current National Institute of Fashion Technology in New Delhi, but a new campus being setup in a different city and state (which is even mentioned in the article). I suggest before calling bad faith on someone that proper research is done to ensure that like names don't cause confusion. Caffeyw (talk) 22:08, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Sure why not. I know very well NIFT and its branches. WP:TOOSOON is an essay, not a policy and if you read this essay you'll see it mainly discusses films, actors etc and not a national government sponsored institute like this. I am pinging @MichaelQSchmidt:, who is the writer of the essay to see what he feels. --Tito☸Dutta 22:33, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Some things are obviously notable as soon as they are started or even announced, and a major institute of this sort is one of them. It's similar to a government decision to construct a new province: it would be notable at the first proposal. I do not , however, call this a bad faith nomination. The nom seems to be perfectly sincere in making his principal WP activity listing articles for deletion. He seems to have only a 50% success rate when judged by what the community does, but that could merely indicate a desire to learn by experience instead of first seeing what our practices actually are. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DGG (talk • contribs) 22:48, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It seems we're missing the purpose of the AfD and attacking the user instead. Yes I had problems at first, heck I even took part of a month off to ensure I fully understood policy. I started posting again today, and so far this is the only article where I've been told it's an outright bad faith. All others have been taken as reasonable AfDs, with the clear majority supported outright. I'm sorry that I offended you by arguing against the closure of an AfD less then 24 hours after it opened, but it's clear now that if it involves India that you want it to stay. I've provided a very concise and well thought out reason for this AfD, and even if TOOSOON is just an essay it's used by most on AfD to show that something is premature in having it's own page. You've not argued one bit that this school exists, that there's firm plans for it, or that there's even an opening date, just it was announced as needed thus it should have an article. Your sole argument seems to be that you dislike the nominator and that since it involves India it should stay. Hopefully an admin can review this. To prevent further arguing I'm not posting on this AfD further. Talkpage is best. Caffeyw (talk) 23:03, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

• Weak keep per analysis by DGG and sources provided by User:Titodutta... orat the very least, Redirect for a few weeks and temporarily only to National Institute of Fashion Technology until this announced branch is set up and running, as it as this plan by the Government of India already meets WP:GNG. I openly and herein ask the nom if this solution is suitable, and if he would step back from any drama to (for now) openly support a keep per WP:NRVE or a temporary redirection. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 00:55, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I am the one who created this article. Since it has been announced by Minister of Textiles, officially, and has been published on the official Mouthpiece of Government of India, there leaves very little doubt that the institute wont be setup. The whole process of setting up a new institute takes time and it may take 18-20 months before the Admission begins or the website of Institute goes live. I request you not to hurry it for deletion as the pace of Indian Bureaucracy is slow and very little progress is actually revealed to media. Quartzd (talk) 02:45, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• So if say the Gov. of California announces tomorrow that a University of CA campus should be opened in Arcadia we should go ahead and open a page called University of CA at Arcadia? Even though there's no funding, there's no promise it will actually be built, no promise that the legislature will approve of the plan? All we have at this time is a Minister's statement that a campus should be opened. I can understand a note on the UC main page, and in this case there is a note on the main National Institute of Technology page, but it's way too premature to have a National Institute of Technology Ludhiana page. Any number of things can happen between now and an actual campus opening, if one even ever does. Caffeyw (talk) 06:34, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, we do have articles on some projects that don't exist yet, i.e. the Hyperloop (which may very well never be built). Mark Arsten (talk) 07:07, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• And your imaginary "what if" aside, please do not disregard the primary notability guideline nor forget that policy allows forward looking articles. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 07:29, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's true, however there's more reliable sourced information about it, and it's a concept. Here all we have is a state of need, nothing more, no source to indicate more information, no source to validate a school will be built. Nothing other then a Ministers desire. This fails even the SCHOOLS exception to GNG. Basically the keep votes are arguing that because a Minister stated they want a school we should just take it on blind faith that the school will be built. There's no money, no legislative approval, no building plans, no location picked, nothing. All it is currently is a stated desire of a Minister of Textiles. Caffeyw (talk) 07:35, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• There is a difference between campus of any University and autonomous Institutes like NIFT. However there are several pages for regional NIFTs like National Institute of Fashion Technology Patna and National Institute of Fashion Technology Shillong. There are examples in cases of Universities also, see BITS Pilani Goa Campus BITS Pilani Hyderabad Campus and BITS Pilani, Dubai Campus. Also, this is not a Minister's desire, but an announcement. Quartzd (talk) 07:41, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Big difference is those Institute's are open, they ARE schools. Also an announcement that an area should get an Institute is a desire, it doesn't become more then that until it's actually approved. Caffeyw (talk) 07:45, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's so premature that the NFIT has not even had a chance to weigh in on if they want, much less will build a campus in this city. I agree it doesn't have to wait till it opens, but we need to at least know it's more then an announced want before an article can be created. Caffeyw (talk) 17:13, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Caffeyw, please try to understand that policy allows forward-looking articles even on ideas or concepts as long as properly sourced. We encourage articles about sourcable topics, without demanding that all sourcable topics be tangibles. They key for inclusion is not "I can see it and so it exists". real or not, the key for inclusion, real or not, is that "the topic has been written about in multiple reliable sources outside of Wikipedia" (in examples:, we have 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 and there are many more "concepts" written of here)... being "real" or "being funded" is not the inclusion criteria. An early article that grows over time and through editorial effort is how we build an encyclopedia. See WP:WIP, and WP:PERFECT. What you keep ignoring is that the "topic" of the planned National Institute of Fashion Technology in the area of Ludhiana HAS been spoken of in multiple reliable sources. As multiple sources speak toward India's plans for NIFTs to challenge China in the field of fashion design and manufacture, and in light of the other such institutions they have already built, it is hubris to declare it non-notable as either a topic or a concept. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 17:29, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I fully understand forward looking ideas can have articles if there's wide spread reliable discussion about them. As I said above the school does not have to open for an article to be created. However simply having a Minister of Textile state that he wishes a campus to open in a city is not wide spread discussion of creating a campus. All we have at this point is one persons desire to open a campus in this city. We don't have any discussion from the actual school that would open a new campus in this city, the city, the legislature, anyone else. There's nothing that can be said other then Minister of Textiles wants NFIT campus in city. Caffeyw (talk) 18:19, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think you need to revisit the references which clearly state that the Institute would be started shortly and not 'I want an Institute' type. The article also talks about Land Allotment for the project. Here is the first paragraph from the same "Ludhiana will be shortly having a National Institute of Fashion Technology (NIFT). This was announced by the Union Minister of Textiles K.S Rao at the interaction with the representatives of Ludhiana Integrated Textile Park and Knitwear Club in the presence of Manish Tewari, Union Minister for Information and Broadcasting here today".Quartzd (talk) 01:54, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - FYI, there appears to be a rather ham-handed and ineffective (so far) attempt at canvassing going on in relation to this subject here. While I doubt that it will have an effect on the outcome here at AfD (for which I have no opinion), you should probably all know about it in any event. Guy1890 (talk) 23:38, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Going to an admin about a complaint is an attempt at vote getting? If you notice he didn't even support this vote. All you've done here is make an argument that you are suggesting people not be able to bring issues to an admin. I wrote a complaint, I never asked him to vote, to take a side, etc. Read before you make baseless complaints. Caffeyw (talk) 15:21, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• No, that is not "inappropriate canvassing". And look at the editor he approached — it's Mark Arsten, a trusted admin. He was just trying to get help. --Tito☸Dutta 15:57, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I really don't see any need for a really short page made of rumors rather than a redirect to National Institute of Fashion Technology. --Vituzzu (talk) 00:01, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete/Redirect to National Institute of Fashion Technology. There's no coverage beyond a ministerial announcement, which by itself is not a guarantee that an institute will be set up, especially when made to a local trade group gathering. "Soon" is also a very variable term. Until such time that land allocation and the BoG are set up under the aegis of the statutory body (in this case NIFT) an institute is not a guarantee. We don't need to wait for admissions to open up, but we at least need to know that an institute is in the works and isn't just a promise. —SpacemanSpiff 19:51, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 04:30, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Scalar Analysis (Finance)[edit]

Scalar Analysis (Finance) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG. Bbb23 (talk) 17:06, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:56, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:56, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Definitely fails general notability. NoyPiOka (talk) 10:59, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• The user who created this is currently blocked, but here is their reply to the notification of this discussion:

Hello, my name is Ramoncito Ulep. I am the individual who created the topic "Scalar Analysis (Finance)". I created it because it is a publication I made. Albeit self-published, I was assuming that because Wikipedia has accepted my notable contributions to the music industry in the Philippines and included my own name as a Wikipedia topic, the organization would also recognize my published work citing Wikipedia itself as a "reliable source" of reference.

Not good. Although I usually prefer to see actual words used in deletion discussions instead of just links I have to agree with the nomination and will add WP:VSCA as well. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:33, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong delete per WP:NOR and WP:GNG. Given the note above, probably the same editor's other contributions need to be checked as well. —David Eppstein (talk) 02:25, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - definitely OR, and appears to be self-promotion/COI as well. Gandalf61 (talk) 10:51, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Mark Arsten (talk) 04:31, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Phylogenetic niche conservatism[edit]

Phylogenetic niche conservatism (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Term pulled directly from the paper that is used as reference. Essay/OR would seem to apply to what the poster is using for reference. Seems to be a basic reprint of the main point of the referenced essay. Everything stated in the article is pulled from the one reference and reworded just enough to not be an outright copyright violation. Caffeyw (talk) 16:10, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:30, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - article needs serious work, but the term is used in many papers as a search immediately reveals. More refs are needed, and much improved discussion, but those are jobs for editing, not for deletion. See e.g. OU, RSPB, Nature. There are hundreds more. Chiswick Chap (talk) 18:44, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep "Phylogenetic niche conservatism" gets over a thousand hits on Google Scholar and the first page of hits shows multiple papers where this topic is the main subject of the paper. More reliable references appear in GBooks. This is a clearly notable topic, as the nominator would have seen if they had followed WP:BEFORE. The article does need work, but none of the problems are insurmountable, per WP:SURMOUNTABLE. A notable topic and and surmountable problems suggests keeping the article. --Mark viking (talk) 20:34, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep there is a point in WP:BEFORE, which is to search for references before nominating, to avoid errors of this sort. A nom. is currently permitted to ignore searching, and make the inevitable errors, but it wastes the time of others. As I have been saying for years, basic checking should be obligatory. DGG ( talk ) 00:55, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Many reliable sources identified above. DavidLeighEllis (talk) 21:14, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think I detect a SNOWflake here ... if someone could do the honours. Chiswick Chap (talk) 06:58, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was No consensus. I believe in all my tenure as an AfD closing admin so far this is the one which best illustrates what no consensus is about. One can try in a couple of years to see whether the consensus has been shifted.Ymblanter (talk) 07:56, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Newcastle United F.C. 0–1 Crystal Palace F.C. (1907)[edit]

Newcastle United F.C. 0–1 Crystal Palace F.C. (1907) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

PROD contested after 9 days; original rationale remains valid. The claim that this is "one of the greatest shocks of all time in the history of the FA Cup" is not supported by reliable sources, and the match has not been the subject of significant coverage. It is just another match - one of many a season - where a big club is defeated by a smaller club, causing minor ripples in the footballing world - nothing more, and nothing to make this one stand out. GiantSnowman 14:03, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 14:04, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• keep - In a season where they would win the league, were second in the league at the time of the match and were cup finalists the previous season. I would say Newcastle losing to the non-league crystal palace at home in the first round of the cup makes this match notable. Also the passage of over 100 years with this match being written about in reliable sources while few other 'giant killings' still are. => Spudgfsh (Text Me!) 14:21, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• That's not how notability works on Wikipedia. Where is the "significant coverage in reliable sources"? GiantSnowman 14:49, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 15:26, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 15:26, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 15:26, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep It's nice to see a football article that's actually about a game of football rather than being yet another bio-stub or tedious list of stats and scorelines. The article already has plenty of sources; here's another: Football's Giant Killers: 50 Great Cup Upsets. Warden (talk) 16:51, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Sure, there's a minimal amount of coverage; but there's little notable about this match. We do not have articles on other "big upsets", and nor should we. It's not even a cup final match - just a run-of-the-mill early round fixture that had an unexpected result. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 18:01, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. I am hampered by not being able to read the newspaper reports of the period but (anyway, and particularly after looking at the article creator's contribution record) I am willing to accept that the coverage was substantial. In itself this could be regarded as merely routine reporting but I see the match is still being written about by reliable sources over a hundred years later. To me that establishes notability in the WP:GNG sense. I think it a defect that WP:Notability (sports) has little historical perspective (although WP:SPORTSEVENT does seem to be met) and that WP:NFOOTY restricts itself to personalities. However, those are problems with the specific guidelines and not with the article itself. Thincat (talk) 11:15, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete IMO, cup shocks fall under WP:ROUTINE. Plus some of the stuff in the introduction ("the equivalent of the current Premier League") is cringeworthy. Number 57 12:20, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Does not meet criteria from WP:EVENT guideline; routine sports reporting jni (talk) 07:50, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• No, it does meet those criteria; especially WP:PERSISTENCE. Warden (talk) 13:09, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - I can't see any indication that this is a particularly notable match. The article itself states that it is the equivalent of a Division 1 team beating a Premier League team. This is not really a particularly rare occurrance. Additionally, most of the sources explaioning how this is a shock are of dubious reliability. Nine references seem to come from a random personal website. Of the remaining recent sources, presumably those cited as showing WP:PERSISTENCE, a significant number of them are from a book called We All Follow The Palace, which sounds like a book written by and for fans, so not a reliable source or from a Crystal Palace matchday programme. I can't see anything to indicate that this match has received significant coverage a "great FA Cup shock" in any truly independant sources. Fenix down (talk) 13:30, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Obviously, as creator. It meets the GNG, it was discussed widely in newspapers at the time and was the first great cup upset in the history of the FA Cup. Any clunky text is based on me copying the format of the article Hereford United 2–1 Newcastle United, where you can clearly find the text "the equivalent of the current Premier League." I would suggest that most of the participants in this debate are suffering from something akin to WP:RECENTISM, in that only recent events seem to them to be worthy of inclusion. I'd also note that We All Follow The Palace is more than a book written by and for fans; the history of the club was written by Tony Matthews who has authored numerous books on Football Club History. It's also somewhat disingenuous to suggest the book is written for the fans, given that most books, indeed most things in general, are bought by fans of the book itself. Attempting to cast aspersions on something because people buy it seems an odd argument to make. A book about a football club will inevitably be bought by fans of that club. The article has been amended to suggest it is the equivalent of a League One side, not a Division One side as Division One is the second division and the article was at one point in time suggesting the third division. In actuality, what happened is a club that had been formed the previous season and were playing non-league football beat the champions of England. It is hard to think of something equivalent in this day and age happening, a club formed in 2011 beating Manchester United the first round of the cup? The stuff of legends! I would in summary point out that Wikipedia:Notability is not superseded by the local, specific, consensus in WP:EVENT. There are not two hurdles to be jumped here, the notability guidance is quite clear on this: A topic is presumed to merit an article if it meets the general notability guideline below. Nobody has found an issue with the GNG, the article has sources in the press of the day and I suspect there are others in more recent papers but I do not as yet have access to the correct libraries nor the time to find them. I presume they exist and the presumption is that the match is of note. Best regards Hiding T 16:00, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I don't think it really is a strange argument to suggest that a book specifically written to be marketed at fans (the title "We all Follow Palace" is a bit of a giveaway) would be inherently unreliable. Of course events like this are going to be talked up, because the people to whom the book is marketed have an inherent desire to read about such events. Your comment about a two year old team beating Man U is a bit disengenuous as well as Newcastle were barely 15 years old at the time! Your comment that nobody has found issue with GNG is also disengenuous. Everybody who says delete has by definition! Fenix down (talk) 17:19, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Almost all books are marketed at people who're interested in the subject, whether it's a book about a sports team, sportsperson, writer, musician, politician, or religious topic. Wikipedia:RS#Biased or opinionated sources makes it clear that a reliable source does not have to be unbiased. If you have specific concerns that the author does not meet WP:RS, explain them. --Colapeninsula (talk) 17:15, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep:This is indeed an important match where a Premier League club was defeated by a non league club.Also there are plenty of references.This type of articles are kept.Ex Borussia Mönchengladbach 12–0 Borussia Dortmund RRD13 (talk) 13:08, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Firstly you can't really use the Premier v non-league analogy for matches played at the time there was not a minimum of four divisions, nor anywhere near the number of clubs that exist now. Secondly, you can't really compare a FA cup match with the all-time record victory in the Bundesliga. Fenix down (talk) 13:18, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: Coverage well beyond GNG. What's "disengenuous" and "cringeworthy" – if anything – is members of Wikiproject Football following their three-line whip and rigging the discussion by voting en bloc as usual. All but one of the delete votes are from WP:FOOTBALL which as a project lacks any objectivity and is increasingly taking on the aspect of a circle jerk. Clavdia chauchat (talk) 12:47, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Upsets are, by definition, unexpected, but that doesn't mean they aren't routine. I'm sure this is of great interest to Crystal Palace fans, but it's overall significance hasn't been demonstrated. There's a high bar to meet for individual football matches, and this doesn't pass it. --BDD (talk) 16:48, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Well-written, adequately sourced and an interesting article. If the nominator has a problem with one specific line in it, he could always contribute by improving the article rather than deleting it. Hmlarson (talk) 18:44, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that it's well written and referenced, but that's not a good reason to keep, nor is the fact that it may be interesting. --BDD (talk) 19:00, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Whoops, guess I forgot to include reference to the WP:GNG guideline in my first sentence. My mistake - but thanks to the links to that essay. Hmlarson (talk)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete merge to Ponce de Leon Avenue. —Darkwind (talk) 06:56, 27 September 2013 (UTC) Edit: A merger was performed before the AfD was closed, but that fact was not mentioned after discussion, making the de facto outcome merge instead of delete. This AfD did not address the suitability of the content to be included in a broader article, and I have restored the article history for licensing compliance. —Darkwind (talk) 23:23, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Kroger (Ponce de Leon Ave.)[edit]

Kroger (Ponce de Leon Ave.) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Previously deleted via AfD under the name Murder Kroger first part of this year. CSD declined since the article was rewritten incorporating references to the murder and death that occurred. However none of the material is new. All was available last time. While I'm sure some locals call it Murder Kroger, it just doesn't seem to rise to the level of notability to justify a stand alone article on the store. Caffeyw (talk) 14:03, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. The previous deletion was for a WP:NEO. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Murder Kroger. To quote one of the delete votes there: "If there were reputable local mainstream sources (AJC, TV/radio station websites, newspaper archives, etc.), even just a few of them, that would be enough in my opinion. As Ten Pound Hammer has pointed out, there are not enough credible sources to establish this article." Now we have 10 citations to The Atlanta Journal-Constitution (AJC). Per WP:CHAIN, which doesn't normally encourage franchise articles, we have sufficient detailed coverage to establish a coherent article about the store. The "nickname" just makes the proposed DYK hook fun. Biosthmors (talk) 14:45, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 15:21, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Georgia-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 15:21, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 15:21, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete does not meet notability requirements. Ridiculous.97.85.208.225 (talk) 16:50, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wikipedia:Places of local interest says: "It may be considered that if enough attributable information exists about the subject to write a full and comprehensive article about it, it may make sense for the subject to have its own article. If some source material is available, but is insufficient for a comprehensive article, it is better to mention the subject under the article for its parent locality." In this case, the parent locality is clearly Ponce de Leon Avenue. So is Wikipedia served better by having a separate article for this store, or should we merge the content into the article about the street? I think a separate article makes more sense. But in either of these cases, keep or merge, there's no need for an AfD discussion. Biosthmors (talk) 15:53, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I see no significant coverage of this individual Kroger store that would justify an article about it. Local news outlets mention grocery store openings and locations where crimes get committed. Kroger has thousands of stores and all are mentioned occasionally in local papers. The Bank of America branch I go to has been robbed three times in ten years. Is that branch notable? Not in my book. There was a terrible gang shootout 20 years ago at a McDonald's I pass by regularly. Not notable. Much of the content is about competitors in the neighborhood, not this store. And since when do we link to a video of a song by a non-notable band as a reference? I just don't get it. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 17:11, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • User:Cullen328, the article doesn't establish notability based upon the crime. Primary sources are allowed if used with care, which has been done. You're saying the sourced content shouldn't even be merged to the parent article? Biosthmors (talk) ^{please add [[User:Biosthmors]] to your signed reply} 17:36, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Biosthmors, I see nothing worth merging. You could say "There is a Kroger store at intersection X" in the article about the street. It is nothing more than another one of hundreds of thousands of individual supermarkets all over the world. The chain is clearly notable. In my view, an individual store would need to have much more in-depth coverage beyond routine store opening news, renovation rumors and passing mentions in the local crime blotter in order to justify inclusion in this encyclopedia. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 18:04, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Cullen328, interesting. Am I missing something fundamental about Wikipedia? Bear with me a minute, if you will. Because I have in my mind a "featured" version of the Ponce de Leon Avenue article. And imagine we had featured and longer Clermont Lounge, Ponce City Market, and Ford Motor Company Assembly Plant (Atlanta), articles. They're all right there along Ponce. I imagine each establishment along the road would get a section at the street article, and would be adopted WP:SS there, with a ((Main article)) link. What's wrong with that vision? Biosthmors (talk) ^{please add [[User:Biosthmors]] to your signed reply} 18:13, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• In other words, what's the determining characteristic of buildings that deserve coverage at the street article? Are chain establishments not worth discussing, simply because they're chains? Biosthmors (talk) ^{please add [[User:Biosthmors]] to your signed reply} 18:21, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• There is nothing wrong with your overall vision, Biosthmors, with regards to the street article, and the three other places you mentioned, all of which appear notable to me, though the strip club article needs work. Each notable establishment could have a brief section. However, you have not convinced me that this individual Kroger is notable. It could be mentioned in the street article, I suppose, but does not deserve its own article. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 18:29, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks Cullen328 for the discussion. Well, you may already understand my position well, but just to be clear for everyone: I'm arguing that many stand-alone chain stores may be notable. The determining threshold for notability is just a practical matter. Can one find enough details in independent sources to actually craft a coherent stand-alone article? I think I've done that. And I think that is the fundamental intent behind WP:CHAIN. Biosthmors (talk) ^{please add [[User:Biosthmors]] to your signed reply} 19:08, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Your argument doesn't seem to be based on the actual wording of the notability guideline WP:CHAIN, but rather on what you might wish it to be. Here's the actual wording:

"Many companies have chains of local stores or franchises that are individually pretty much interchangeable—for instance, a local McDonald's. Since there is generally very little to say about individual stores or franchises that is not true for the chain in general, Wikipedia should not have articles on such individual stores. In rare cases, an individual location will have architectural peculiarities that makes it notable, such as the Shell Service Station (Winston-Salem, North Carolina) or the McDonald's (Will Rogers Turnpike); however, a series of articles on every single Wal-Mart in China would not be informative. An exception can be made if a major event occurred at a local store; however, this would most likely be created under an article name that describes the event, not the location (see San Ysidro McDonald's massacre for an example)."

All we've got in this case is a few non-notable crimes over 22 years, routine services, competitors, a false renovation rumor, mention of a bunch of competitors, and a couple of shout-outs of a nickname. Where's the architectural or historical significance due to a major event? Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 19:21, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, thanks, and I'm arguing that what's there amounts to much more than the the general case where there is "very little to say". And don't forget the the $1.5 million dollar investment, the song, and the loans that the source implies catalyzed the formation of the store in the 1980s. It adds up, in my opinion. =) I don't think WP:CHAIN offers an exhaustive list of examples that can establish notability. Biosthmors (talk) ^{please add [[User:Biosthmors]] to your signed reply} 19:38, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete A business in a major metropolitan area has a lot of crime? You don't say. --BDD (talk) 17:03, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - nothing of substance there; not even a BLP1E level of substance. --Orange Mike | Talk 21:07, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy-deletion (A7). (Non-admin closure) AllyD (talk) 17:34, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Waleed Dilawar Chughtai[edit]

Waleed Dilawar Chughtai (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not Notable. Shashwat986 → talk 13:59, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Because of persistent vandalistic removal of the AfD and CSD tags, as well as blanking of the AfD articles, there are now two AfDs running for this article. Best to stay with the original one for views. AllyD (talk) 16:28, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 04:33, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Pareiasauromorpha[edit]

Pareiasauromorpha (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

More taxonomic vandalism from a user with a history of it. He's simply making up new taxonomies and editing WP to fit his views. HCA (talk) 13:38, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organisms-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 13:45, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:27, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete This one has been suggested by one author, L A Tsuji, in a 2012 paper and in two earlier works published in German, but it clearly has not taken hold (yet) and is in effect a non-notable neologism. Agricolae (talk) 21:30, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. No reliable sources. jni (talk) 07:47, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 04:33, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nycteroleteria[edit]

Nycteroleteria (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Completely non-existent taxon, no references in google scholar to it. User has a history of simply "making up" new taxonomies and posting them to WP HCA (talk) 13:36, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organisms-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 13:44, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to break it up into Tokosauridae and Nycteroleteria before it gets deleted. If possible stall the deletion until I'm done. Once I'm done I agree to have it deleted. Iainstein (talk) 14:11, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:26, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - I have split off Nycteroleteridae and Tokosauridae is monotypical so there is nothing left to be changed. Iainstein (talk) 14:54, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. No sources. Lots of disruptive taxon editing by original author suggest this could be a hoax. jni (talk) 07:48, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy-deletion (A7). (Non-admin closure) AllyD (talk) 17:32, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Waleed Dilawar Chughtai[edit]

Waleed Dilawar Chughtai (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not Notable. Shashwat986 → talk 13:32, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Agreed. A kid passed an online IT course. Impressive? Maybe (maybe not). Notable? No. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 13:39, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 13:43, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 13:43, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Non-notable. Kolbasz (talk) 14:48, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Because of persistent vandalistic removal of AfD and CSD tags, as well as blanking of the AfD articles, there are now two AfDs running for this article. Best to stay with this one as the original for views. AllyD (talk) 16:29, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, probably CSD A7 A schoolchild having a certificate is not a basis for encyclopaedic notability. AllyD (talk) 16:31, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. —Darkwind (talk) 06:57, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Dyke tyke[edit]

Dyke tyke (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP: DICTIONARY, and entirety of article already located with sources at article Fag hag. Holdek (talk) 13:29, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 13:35, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 13:35, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Wikipedia is not a dictionary. We do not have articles that merely define terms, which this one is.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:29, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: Editors interested in this article should also see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Girlfag and guydyke. "Dyke tyke" and "guydyke" appear to be synonyms. The two sources cited here might be useful somewhere. I'm not going to suggest merging this article into that one, though, because it's not clear what will happen to that article. Cnilep (talk) 22:08, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as a neologism more suitable to Wiktionary. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 03:31, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. KTC (talk) 01:03, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Slum (film)[edit]

Slum (film) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)